Minutes for Telecon for April 09, 2002

Present: Whitney, Watson, Meade, Stolovy, Dickey, Mathis, Wolfire,
Indebetouw, Babler, Kobulnicky, Wolff, Benjamin, Clemens

Next telecon: Tuesday April 23, 2002, 11 am CDT, 608-265-1000 #4112


Announcement 

  There is money from SSC for Martin Cohen. 2 months worth. He could refine
  the colors of IR objects... What should he do for GLIMPSE?  
  Bob Benjamin agreed to send email to Martin with a request list.

Progress updates

  Barb & Marilyn & Remy updated the post-pipeline flowchart
  to include more details of the database interaction.  See the
  GLIMPSE team page (http://www.astro.wisc.edu/sirtf/Team/)
  for the latest version of the flowchart. 

  Mark sent a new version of the QLVT.  It does blinking of
  images and residuals.  We need to send Mark some real residual
  images to use with the QLVT.

SSC post-BCD software

  Are the SSC post-BCD products, in their current state (April 15 
  frozen version), useful to us?
  For now the bandmerger will set threshholds high so they won't have to
  worry about confusion and crowded fields... Not so useful for us. Remy
  provided calibrated images for SSC to help them with their pipeline work..
  Remy may go to the SSC to learn how to use their co-adder and help
  test it but it's probably better to wait until after May for
  a visit because the current co-adder requires accurate coordinates 
  and doesn't drizzle.  We want to remove dependence on SSC
  products for the May meeting. Remy is doing mosaicing in IRAF.
  Susan suggests using "xregister" in IRAF to co-add images.
  Brian has started to do photometry on the co-added images.
  We inquired about the IRSA mosaicer.  George Helou says  it isn't
  built to co-add images but just stitch them together.
  Susan says SSC intermediate software products have a deadline 
  at the end of this week.  Lin Yan is a contact person.

Science Requirements Document drafted by J. Mathis

  In the document we need to justify requirements and limits, size of
  survey, etc.  Assume SSC is primarily interested in Legacy science.
  Legacy science is GLIMPSE science, don't make a distinction between the 2.
  Keep the questions in that drive the science. The big question... is it 
  better to survey less area and have more passes?  We don't know how much
  the # of passes will improve the data but we are working on that. Address
  what science will be  missed if we have to reduce areal coverage. We need
  to quantify reliability improvement with more passes.  # passes improves x%;
  reliability goes from y to z. We want to show for reliability criteria, 2  
  passes is the right number. We need good simulations to help determine
  this.  Areal coverage is the highest priority.  Areal coverage discussion...
  We can justify l=-60 with the Sagittarius carinae tangent point.
  l=18 to 52 comes from GRS.  No GRS outside this area.  There are other
  tracers...Ed's Arecibo project.  We don't want to key our area on
  only regions where there are other datasets.
  l=18 to 52 => galactic ring; 10 to 18 => bar; 52 to 60 => outer spiral arms
  If we lose the 10 to 18 area, still not enough time to do 3 passes.
  If we know where some SFRs are, then we really want to observe these regions.
  We should define key star formation regions.  Photometric accuracy needs to be
  addressed in the document.  Color-color separation.
  John M. will send out a revised document and people should send him comments.